March 17th, 2011 |
Author: Michael RobertscloseAuthor: Michael RobertsName: Michael RobertsSite:http://www.rexxfield.com/essay_internet_defamation_libel.phpAbout: Michael is a thought leader in the areas of internet anonymity, abuse of electronic free speech and industry regulation to protect victims of cyber bullies and defamation. Some media personalities have described him as an "Anonymous Blogger Bounty Hunter".
He is a Case Analyst, Digital Forensics Investigator, Libel Litigation Consultant and entrepreneur. Michael founded Mile2, an international I.T. security organization that has consulted for or trained thousands of personnel from many of the world’s defense forces, intelligence agencies, governments, financial institutions, NGOs and almost any industry imaginable. As a result of his first-hand experience with a malicious, vile and relentless online libel antagonist he sold Mile2 and has turned his passion and focus to helping other victims through the anguish and frustration of such an assault. His team is breaking new ground in direct methods of addressing the attacks as well as seeking congressional and judicial reform to protect the innocent victims of the malicious, illegal and unprotected abuse of free speech. In mid 2010 Michael's antagonist was finally convicted of felonies in two US states with other state and federal charges pending.
Michael was appointed as an investigator for the Australian Telecommunications Commission in the 80s at the age of twenty with field and security clearances from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) before moving to the USA in the late 90s. Michael and his family now live between the USA and Europe.See Authors Posts (11)

A South Carolina jury recently awarded a US$70,250 verdict against Bright Builders, Inc. Never before has a third party web host company been liable for contributory trademark infringement without actually receiving notification from the trademark owner that their patron’s domain promotes forged goods for sale. South Carolina Dist. jdg. M. Seymour’s Mar 14 2011 judgment in “Roger Cleveland Golf Co. versus Prince” came after the jury’s March 10 verdict.

The jury awarded a $2,750 statutory redress verdict against website owners Christopher Prince and his business Prince Distribution LLC for trademark counterfeiting and infringement.

The panel found that Bright Builders and Christopher Prince are both guilty for Prince’s website, for selling counterfeit products.

Christopher Finnerty the Plaintiff’s lead attorney said of Third Party Internet Service Providers:

“A web-hosting company’s obligation is similar to that of a landlord’s”, Finnerty declared.

“A landlord doesn’t have the obligation to act as an investigator against his tenants to find out they are doing anything illegal, but once they knew or should have known, they have to act” Mr. Finnerty said. “How is that any different online?”

“The defendant Bright Builders basically had a heightened duty and they didn’t comply with it” attorney for Bright Builders Christopher Lizzi said. “The jury came back knowing my client acknowledged his fault in this in the beginning and was trying to be lenient on him.”

I believe this is a wonderful example where the common people of a jury bring justice, wisdom and equity back into the justice system which is too often mis-interpreted by judges who will reconstruct the original intent of a law such as §230(c) of the CDA at the expense of equity. I hope that in the not too distant future the same finding will be made by jurors with respect to third-party ISPs and Search Engines that refuse to delete malicious,deceptive, denigrative and emotionally debilitating statements made by anti-social antagonists leveled against their helpless victims. Unfortunately, the managers who make policy strategies for these Internet hosts, blog sites and Search Engines will often leave their consciences at home for the sake of their corporation’s bottom line profits. They give little or no consideration for the phsycological and vocational costs borne by the targets of the antagonist’s fulmination.

Libel is seen by most nations, including the USA to be a personal injury; a third-party ISP or Search Engine should be as socially responsible with respect to removing fictitious and hurtful internet publications as their staff would be to stop a thug is trouncing a little olf lady on the sidewalk.

Above, the attorney Finnerty so concisely but rhetorically asks us: “How is that any different online?”….; I now ask my readers the same question with respect to online defamation, internet libel and cyber bullying. But it is not rehtorical, please communicate your views in the comments section below.